Bite Mark Analysis: Unreliable Evidence

1747 Words7 Pages
Bite mark marked as unreliable evidence in court Intro Bite marks had always been used as a main evidence in cases in the past times, and received a lot of criticism at the same time . But recently, at least 24 men has been exonerated since 2000, DNA extraction and DNA analysis outshines bite mark analysis. The FBI does not use it anymore and the American Dental Association does not recognize it. But what issues causing this evidence's poor performance to allow everyone else neglect its effect in tough cases. Background information First off, bite mark analysis relies on the principle of human teeth; a healthy, normal human adult contains 32 teeth, as each men and women have different lifestyle and habits causing the crown of each teeth…show more content…
The blood at the crime scene matched the victim, and saliva on her body came from someone else. There was no semen and no DNA tests were performed. Investigators relied on bite marks on the victim’s breast and neck. Upon knowing that the victim had told a friend that a regular customer named Ray Krone was to help her close up the bar the previous night, police asked Krone to make an impression of his teeth for…show more content…
In the late 90s, DNA analysis technique was not fully developed. Bite marks were used in most rape and murder case. Due to the nature of matching impression of bite marks, the analysis is subjective and suspected to bias . As for most forensic odontologist, it is their own duty to defend their own analysis and findings. But is it their responsibility to aware the flawed aspect of this evidence? Defending on a false truth does not make things right. Conclusion Modern court sees bite mark analysis filled with flaws and step towards a more stable DNA analysis. Dr. Frank Wright a forensic dentist in Cincinnati said 'Bite mark evidence can be too important not to be useful, you can't just throw it away' In 1998, Dr. Wright was investigating a case where 17-years old Legacy Fawcett was found dead, and a bite mark was found on her body. She was living with two other person: her mother and her mother's boyfriend. As her mom could not have made that bite mark, Wright testified; only the teeth of the man could have done this act, he was found guilty of involuntary manslaughter and sentenced in prison for 8 years. Dr. Greg Golden, president of the American Board of Forensic Odontology, accepted the fact that mistakes have been made in the past because the discipline involves subjective analysis, but he says it cannot render it as

More about Bite Mark Analysis: Unreliable Evidence

Open Document